Apparitions - Impossible to be disproven

partyatmygaff

Now im sure everyone here (Including athiests, muslims, buddhists whatever really) knows of atleast one case of an apparition (Marian or not). I've never heard of a non-christian apparition so maybe that means something?

Now I know theres the fact apparitions at Lourdes, Knock etc get put down by athiests because they happened long before cameras were widespread, But there have been photographed apparitions around the world, These cannot be explained anyway except as it being something supernatural, theres no scientific way of disproving it yet there it is in a photograph is proof there was an apparition.

This is the specific apparition I am talking about



Thats the original 70s black and white image tooken by a newspaper(Not a christian newspaper mind)

My mother and quite a few members of her family went there to see the apparitions and she remembers it very well.

How can that be disproven?

Im sure there are countless other apparitions with so much evidence and absolutley no way to be disproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

Theres a wikipedia link

kiffer

partyatmygaff wrote: »

... I've never heard of a non-christian apparition so maybe that means something?

How much exposure have you had to other religions?... and how much attention do you actually pay to non-christian phenomenon?
For example the Hindu statues that drink milk?

partyatmygaff

Alot of exposure to other religions and no I don't particularly care about other Religion's phenomenon.

This is a thread about apparitions not of "other" phenomenon.

A hindu statue drinking milk(Never heard of it btw) is not an apparition

AtomicHorror

It's pretty hard to tell what that's supposed to be. Some sort of light in the rough shape of a robed person close to a church. What does this prove?

It could be a double exposure, possibly done in conjunction with some sort of hanging lamp close to the bell tower to create a light effect behind the figure. Or all sorts of things really- to be honest the image is of such poor quality that this could be a sort of matte painting for all we can really see. But I'm sure all of this has been examined before and rejected by Christians who wish to believe.

My question is, assuming this apparition is in some manner real, how do you know it is Mary? The fact that the thing is unexplained doesn't mean it automatically is whatever you think it is.

PDN

Most religions have apparitions. And it's impossible to disprove most of them.

Which does not, of course, imply that any of them are genuine.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Most religions have apparitions. And it's impossible to disprove most of them.

Which does not, of course, imply that any of them are genuine.

And even if they were genuine, we'd have no idea who/what are behind them.

AtomicHorror

antiskeptic wrote: »

And even if they were genuine, we'd have no idea who/what are behind them.

Would be rather amusing if it were indeed an apparition, but one of a completely different 2000 year-old robed middle eastern woman that nobody's heard of.

antiskeptic

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Would be rather amusing if it were indeed an apparition, but one of a completely different 2000 year-old robed middle eastern woman that nobody's heard of.

In witch(sic) case you'd have to take her word for it...

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's pretty hard to tell what that's supposed to be. Some sort of light in the rough shape of a robed person close to a church. What does this prove?

It could be a double exposure, possibly done in conjunction with some sort of hanging lamp close to the bell tower to create a light effect behind the figure. Or all sorts of things really- to be honest the image is of such poor quality that this could be a sort of matte painting for all we can really see. But I'm sure all of this has been examined before and rejected by Christians who wish to believe.

My question is, assuming this apparition is in some manner real, how do you know it is Mary? The fact that the thing is unexplained doesn't mean it automatically is whatever you think it is.

Cameras were not that great back in the late sixties and early 70s but the picture isn't there to show that much detail, my mother and many of her relatives among thousands of others all witnessed the apparition in "non-blob-of-white" form in real life and are aswell as all the other people there at the time (christians among athiests, muslims and jews)
and it cannot be just a coincedence that the apparition looked exactly like the Mary we see in all the iconagraphy and artwork over the centuries and one apparition had her with a child in her hands according to some other people who witnessed it(Mother wasnt there that time) but she did witness glowing white doves flying around the dome(Also present in artwork and icongraphy).

I don't know about any of you, but I for one believe it to be a genuine apparition.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Cameras were not that great back in the late sixties and early 70s but the picture isn't there to show that much detail, my mother and many of her relatives among thousands of others all witnessed the apparition in "non-blob-of-white" form in real life and are aswell as all the other people there at the time (christians among athiests, muslims and jews)
and it cannot be just a coincedence that the apparition looked exactly like the Mary we see in all the iconagraphy and artwork over the centuries and one apparition had her with a child in her hands according to some other people who witnessed it(Mother wasnt there that time) but she did witness glowing white doves flying around the dome(Also present in artwork and icongraphy).

I don't know about any of you, but I for one believe it to be a genuine apparition.

Again assuming we're dealing with "an apparition" (however we define that), it looks like a person in a robe. That could be literally anyone from about 1500 AD back until whenever people started wearing clothes. What you've got is a light that looks like a person. To call it more requires a massive logical leap. You can say science cannot disprove your position, but it hardly needs to as your position is both unwarranted and unfalsifiable besides that.

partyatmygaff

This "could" be anyone but you have to ask yourself why would it be just "anyone".
Considering this apparition was witnessed by millions and had an almost exact likeness to the artwork we see of Mary, why especially would "anyone" just happen to appear on the dome of a church dedicated to St.Mary? That would make little sense. It cannot be a coincidence that a figure which looks exactly like the Mary we see in artwork(Which is based on the real mary, those artists did not just invent her likeness) happens to appear above a dome of a church dedicated to Mary.

The photograph isn't great but millions of witnesses who even saw those photographers taking those pictures of the apparition they saw with there very two eyes can only mean that the camera is at fault and not the apparition.

You can say One Christian might be making it up but theres no way in hell you can say 3 Million "Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews and people of other faiths" who witnessed those apparitions as liars or it was all just in their head. The president of Egypt even witnessed it and he was NOT exactly one of the more tolerant muslims.

Dinner

If that's the original photograph, then why is it such a complete contrast between black and white. From my very limited knowledge of 70's photography I would have thought that they would have discovered grey by then.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This "could" be anyone but you have to ask yourself why would it be just "anyone".

Why wouldn't it be? Given that you;ve no idea what this is or how it got there, why assume it's some particular thing without evidence?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering this apparition was witnessed by millions and had an almost exact likeness to the artwork we see of Mary, why especially would "anyone" just happen to appear on the dome of a church dedicated to St.Mary? That would make little sense.

That would make little sense? But a glowing apparition of specifically Mary makes perfect sense?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It cannot be a coincidence that a figure which looks exactly like the Mary we see in artwork(Which is based on the real mary, those artists did not just invent her likeness) happens to appear above a dome of a church dedicated to Mary.

What are you talking about? Nobody knows what Mary looked like. The artistic representations created through the last 2000 years have little in common with one another. Female with a robe and a halo- and that's it. Even the way halos are represented varies and it's not clear they were ever intended to be a literal thing rather than a generalised visual metaphor for holiness.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The photograph isn't great but millions of witnesses who even saw those photographers taking those pictures of the apparition they saw with there very two eyes can only mean that the camera is at fault and not the apparition.

You can say One Christian might be making it up but theres no way in hell you can say 3 Million "Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews and people of other faiths" who witnessed those apparitions as liars or it was all just in their head. The president of Egypt even witnessed it and he was NOT exactly one of the more tolerant muslims.

I've no doubt they saw something. But did anyone do a poll on what they thought it was? Do we have 3 million documented witness statements? How were the numbers, convictions and faiths of these people verified? With 3 million witnesses sure it was Mary, why do so few seem to be talking about this? And besides all that, how do we identify this as "Mary"?

partyatmygaff

Dinner wrote: »

If that's the original photograph, then why is it such a complete contrast between black and white. From my very limited knowledge of 70's photography I would have thought that they would have discovered grey by then.

This is egypt we are talking about during a not so excellent economic period.
Sure in the USA etc people had better camera's here they did not.


Even without the photograph, sure forget about the photographs for a moment.
3 Million + multiple faith witnesses are not lying.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This is egypt we are talking about during a not so excellent economic period.
Sure in the USA etc people had better camera's here they did not.


Even without the photograph, sure forget about the photographs for a moment.
3 Million + multiple faith witnesses are not lying.

Are 3 million people all saying the same thing and if so, where? Also, "not lying" is not the same thing as "right".

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be? Given that you;ve no idea what this is or how it got there, why assume it's some particular thing without evidence?
Well there is no evidence that could satisfy someone who was not there's mind but this being the dome of a church dedicated to Mary it would make sense to believe so


That would make little sense? But a glowing apparition of specifically Mary makes perfect sense?
To a christian who believes it does makes sense


What are you talking about? Nobody knows what Mary looked like. The artistic representations created through the last 2000 years have little in common with one another. Female with a robe and a halo- and that's it. Even the way halos are represented varies and it's not clear they were ever intended to be a literal thing rather than a generalised visual metaphor for holiness.
There was no halo IIRC my mothers story correctly, nobody today may know what she looked like but her image was passed down through the ages possibly by physical description through words until finally her face was captured as artwork and copied through the years


I've no doubt they saw something. But did anyone do a poll on what they thought it was? Do we have 3 million documented witness statements? How were the numbers, convictions and faiths of these people verified? With 3 million witnesses sure it was Mary, why do so few seem to be talking about this? And besides all that, how do we identify this as "Mary"?
Well the numbers of faiths make little difference, my mother does recall seeing a huge number of muslims however all in constant disbelief asking how the illusion was made. The fact is 3 Million differing people with differing levels of faith or non-faith witnessed this event and saw "something" while a large majority seen a figure exactly akin to icongraphy

.

AtomicHorror

Again, where's the evidence of the witness of these 3 million people? Where's the evidence of identity?

Sorry man, this is a pretty clear-cut case of seeing what you want to see. Unexplained phenomena are not carte blanche for stating whatever you like as fact.

antiskeptic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Now im sure everyone here (Including athiests, muslims, buddhists whatever really) knows of atleast one case of an apparition (Marian or not). I've never heard of a non-christian apparition so maybe that means something?

Quick question: the wikipedia article says that the apparations occurred over a period of years. When I Google Image Our Lady Zeitoun however I seem to get the same image repeated again and again. I'd imagine there to have been millions of (professional grade) photos taken, tv footage and the like. Does this material exist and if not why not do you think?

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Again, where's the evidence of the witness of these 3 million people? Where's the evidence of identity?

Sorry man, this is a pretty clear-cut case of seeing what you want to see. Unexplained phenomena are not carte blanche for stating whatever you like as fact.

The evidence is the newspapers of the time and my mothers experience there, the newspapers reported millions had seen it, did you really expect people to check IDs and count how many people were there to prove it actually happened? My mother said there were people EVERYWHERE you looked and im pretty sure over the course of 2 years you can imagine quite a few would of went to go see these apparitions.

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This "could" be anyone but you have to ask yourself why would it be just "anyone".
Considering this apparition was witnessed by millions and had an almost exact likeness to the artwork we see of Mary, why especially would "anyone" just happen to appear on the dome of a church dedicated to St.Mary? That would make little sense. It cannot be a coincidence that a figure which looks exactly like the Mary we see in artwork(Which is based on the real mary, those artists did not just invent her likeness) happens to appear above a dome of a church dedicated to Mary.

If there is one thing you can say about Mary is that she did not look like any of the artwork we all know. She was from the middle East and definitely didn't look like a whithe Western European woman (that's like most of the artwork looks like).
That the apparition looked exactly like the artwork we know, makes it much more likely that it was either a mass hallucination or the people made just up that they saw someone like mary to impress others. People saw what they wanted to see. And as they knew mary only as a white Western European woman in a robe, that's what they thought (or made up) to see.

partyatmygaff

antiskeptic wrote: »

Quick question: the wikipedia article says that the apparations occurred over a period of years. When I Google Image Our Lady Zeitoun however I seem to get the same image repeated again and again. I'd imagine there to have been millions of (professional grade) photos taken, tv footage and the like. Does this material exist and if not why not do you think?

Google image sadly isn't the end all way of finding images

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

Look at the front page videos section and on the right hand side zeitoun gallery.

ALOT of Proof.

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

nobody today may know what she looked like but her image was passed down through the ages possibly by physical description through words until finally her face was captured as artwork and copied through the years

So what you are saying is that 200 years ago, the population of Israel were all white Western European people?
Do you have any evidence for this.
It is very clear, that all depictions of people from the bible do not reflect how they realy looked ike, but rather a mix of how the people at the time of the art work looked like plus some imagination of how they presumed the people in the past looked like. Some artwork have more of the former, some more of the later, but none has anything to do with how Mary or jesus or anyone else of that time looked like.

partyatmygaff

mdebets wrote: »

If there is one thing you can say about Mary is that she did not look like any of the artwork we all know. She was from the middle East and definitely didn't look like a whithe Western European woman (that's like most of the artwork looks like).
That the apparition looked exactly like the artwork we know, makes it much more likely that it was either a mass hallucination or the people made just up that they saw someone like mary to impress others. People saw what they wanted to see. And as they knew mary only as a white Western European woman in a robe, that's what they thought (or made up) to see.

And how exactly do you know she did not look like the artwork? It is obviously based on her or atleast verbal recollections of her image.


If these people were all christians ok maybe you may have a point that 3 million-ish christian people all had a "mass hallucination" but I can and so can anyone who was there guarantee there was alot of non-christians present. The egyptian police (Who were not exactly very tolerant of christianity) spent months trying to find out how this "illusion" was done, they found no projector, no magic 3d projector, nothing at all and no lights at all projecting at the dome. Even the president of egypt witnessed it himself and tried to disprove it but he couldn't.

partyatmygaff

mdebets wrote: »

So what you are saying is that 200 years ago, the population of Israel were all white Western European people?
Do you have any evidence for this.
It is very clear, that all depictions of people from the bible do not reflect how they realy looked ike, but rather a mix of how the people at the time of the art work looked like plus some imagination of how they presumed the people in the past looked like. Some artwork have more of the former, some more of the later, but none has anything to do with how Mary or jesus or anyone else of that time looked like.

Em are you joking or what? I said possibly her family had originally been from europe because there are alot of middle eastern women who are white and have european facial features.

And how is it very clear that her image was made up by an artist? Have YOU any proof to back that up? I find it very hard to believe somebody with respect for religion and important religious figures who wanted to seriously portray someone in a painting to atleast have some idea (Whether by actually meeting the person or asking recollections of who had met her) of the person they were portraying.
People back then I doubt would want to just go inventing or creating an image of a religious figure as important as the mother of Jesus.

Zombrex

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People back then I doubt would want to just go inventing or creating an image of a religious figure as important as the mother of Jesus.

Oh course they did. You think Jesus had long blond hair?

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And how exactly do you know she did not look like the artwork? It is obviously based on her or atleast verbal recollections of her image..

For two reasons.
Today, you can actually re-creat how a person looked like in the past, based on the skull (obviously not exactly, but you good enough for this purpose). That has been done on at least one skull from a person from Israel from this time (saw that on TV in germany recently). The recreation clearly showed that he looked from the typus more than a today Palaestinian or Arab then any Western European. That also coincides what else we could deduct from written sources, and other archaeological evidence.
So if the normal people didn't look like Western European, why should mary look like one?
You can also do a comparison of pictures of Mary with other pictures from the same time they were created and they show clear parallels, in looks, hair and clothes. So the painter had clearly a real-life model from his time who he was using to paint Mary.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If these people were all christians ok maybe you may have a point that 3 million-ish christian people all had a "mass hallucination" but I can and so can anyone who was there guarantee there was alot of non-christians present. The egyptian police (Who were not exactly very tolerant of christianity) spent months trying to find out how this "illusion" was done, they found no projector, no magic 3d projector, nothing at all and no lights at all projecting at the dome. Even the president of egypt witnessed it himself and tried to disprove it but he couldn't.

The non-Christians you are talking about were most likely Moslems. Mary is one of the most highly regarded women in Islam (see ) and is venerated as well, just go to Ephesus and visit the house of mary, to see this.
So we have two groups of people who venerate Mary (although in different ways) who have a mass hallucination, not impossible possible.
You said the president and the Police was there to investigate it. Wouldn't you think that at least they would have a good enough camera, to make a decent photo of the apparition or brought one at one stage within the 3 years?

antiskeptic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Google image sadly isn't the end all way of finding images

When it comes to a most remarkable event, supposedly witnessed by millions over the space of a few years then you'd be hard pressed to find a better first stop shop. The lack of photo evidence certainly contributes to the sense that this event is going to struggle to evidence itself.

Remember my query:

I'd imagine there to have been millions of (professional grade) photos taken, tv footage and the like. Does this material exist and if not why not do you think?

A quick sift through your source http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ produces low grade fuzzy video images wrapped up in documentaries that presume what they're supposed to be demonstrating. The quality of the 3 or 4 still images I found didn't differ all that much from what judicious sprinkling of bleach could be expected to achieve. Of course that's not to say the photos are a hoax but if they can't rise above hoax levels what's to stop us applying Occams Razor. Back to my question:

Does this (hi grade) material exist and if not why not, do you think?

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Em are you joking or what? I said possibly her family had originally been from europe because there are alot of middle eastern women who are white and have european facial features.

Of course there are now. That's just the many Jewish imigrants from Europe.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And how is it very clear that her image was made up by an artist? Have YOU any proof to back that up? I find it very hard to believe somebody with respect for religion and important religious figures who wanted to seriously portray someone in a painting to atleast have some idea (Whether by actually meeting the person or asking recollections of who had met her) of the person they were portraying.

Tree simple proofs.
First. Look at several different pictures of Mary and you clearly see, that the woman behind it is different.Why would that be, if they were all working of the same description?
Second, compare contempory pictures with pictures of Mary. Why do they look similar from face, hair and clothes, if the one was over 1000 years older than the other.
Third. If there were such a prototype of how Mary looked, this would have to go right back to the first century AD. If you had now pictures 1600 or 1700 years later, which were based on this prototype, ther must be some evidence there that these prototype existed (either a prototype or a description somewhere stating that this prototype existed). For something being constantly in use for over 1000 years, there would be no possible way for it to not leave any evidence behind.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

People back then I doubt would want to just go inventing or creating an image of a religious figure as important as the mother of Jesus.

They actually always did. Going back to the times way before Christianity, religious statues were often modeled on real life people. There is nothing like showing you power then having a statue of Jupiter, which actually looked like you.

partyatmygaff

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh course they did. You think Jesus had long blond hair?

Most icongraphy shows dark hair and i personally never seen a blond haired icon of Jesus.


Wow just because the majority of a country look one way does not mean there cant be minorities which can look different (Yes even back 2000 years ago).

Besides I doubt anybody could clearly see her face from the distance below, that church dome is huge and is very high up (I was there so I would know its about the height of two typical irish 2 storey homes) so this whole business of what her face looked like is pretty much irrelevant.

You can keep asking a million times why there are no hi-grade photos
1. Its 68-71 and cameras were pretty poor quality, Remember this is EGYPT (NOT THE USA OR ANOTHER RICH COUNTRY) and Newspaper reporters back then did not carry very high-end cameras.
2. Its an underexposed image because the sheer intensity of the light would of not of been captured on 35mm film.
3. Nobody knew when each apparition was going to happen, the apparitions were not some staged event and prescribed visiting times so those high grade cameras (Which were pretty bad compared to photography of today) which would not usually of been with typical people would not of been there to take photos.


According to Islam Jesus is also a prophet and is respected by Islam......

However those muslims would view an apparition at a "CHRISTIAN" church to be a threat to their own religion and because of that they strongly opposed it. They *may* have some respect for her in their "religion" but still they could not of liked this as to them it meant Mary chose to appear on a christian church instead of a mosque so all these people who witnessed and were non-believers were not there in respect of Mary they were there just to see what was going on and to attempt to disprove it.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And how exactly do you know she did not look like the artwork? It is obviously based on her or atleast verbal recollections of her image.

Already said why! The various paintings, drawings and sculptures of her do not agree on what she looks like. Generic lady in a robe. The face is not common to all.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Besides I doubt anybody could clearly see her face from the distance below, that church dome is huge and is very high up (I was there so I would know its about the height of two typical irish 2 storey homes) so this whole business of what her face looked like is pretty much irrelevant.

You're the one claiming it looks like Mary. Now you're saying they couldn't have seen her face? So again, what makes this Mary?

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Already said why! The various paintings, drawings and sculptures of her do not agree on what she looks like. Generic lady in a robe. The face is not common to all.



You're the one claiming it looks like Mary. Now you're saying they couldn't have seen her face? So again, what makes this Mary?

The fact it happened on the dome of a church dedicated to Mary.
The fact the clothing is what is commonly depicted in artwork.
The glowing white doves which also appeared and is photographed on that website i gave earlier surround her which is seen in some artwork.
The fact she has a child in her hand which was seen by all present but I cannot find photos from that angle.


Its too many things to be a mere coincedence.


Actually, can you explain what could it be? Im open to suggestions.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The fact it happened on the dome of a church dedicated to Mary.

Is that how it works? If I dedicate a church to someone holy they're more likely to appear there as a glowing light? So why does Mary also just show up in random places that haven't been dedicated to her?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The fact the clothing is what is commonly depicted in artwork.

A robe? Even the robes aren't consistent in artwork. What makes the robe Mary's robe? What makes it distinct from the robe of any of the other hundreds of millions of people living between 2000BC and 1500AD?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The glowing white doves which also appeared and is photographed on that website i gave earlier surround her which is seen in some artwork.

That's pretty flimsy. I'm sure Mary is not the only person to have occasionally been painted with some doves nearby.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The fact she has a child in her hand which was seen by all present but I cannot find photos from that angle.

Well, let us know if you find evidence of that.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Its too many things to be a mere coincedence.

If someone had pre-specified all of those things together as being signs of an apparition, you might almost be right. But Mary seems to like to show up in all sorts of places, so the church isn't all that relevant. Robes indiscernible from the supposed robes we see here were common for thousands of years. Doves are basically meaningless too. So what you have is several disconnected events which you're now drawing lines between with your mind.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Actually, can you explain what could it be? Im open to suggestions.

It appears to be a light shaped like a person wearing a robe. Anything beyond that is speculation.

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The fact it happened on the dome of a church dedicated to Mary.
The fact the clothing is what is commonly depicted in artwork.

You still didn't answer my questions. If the Mary depicted in the artwork looks like the real Mary, and apparent to your last statement dresses like her then why:
1) do the different Mary's have different facial features? According to you, they must all look the same.
2) Why does Mary dresses and has hairstyles that look like dresses and hairstyles that contemporary women (of the time of the painter) are wearing?
3) According to thee Bible, Mary wasn't rich, but the wife of a carpenter. Why are the pictures depicting her in high status clothing?

Unless you are answering these 3 questions, I don't really see any point in discussing anything further, as you seemed to be set in believing this nonsense of Mary actually looking like a white Western European rich woman, which she clearly wasn't.

partyatmygaff

mdebets wrote: »

You still didn't answer my questions. If the Mary depicted in the artwork looks like the real Mary, and apparent to your last statement dresses like her then why:
1) do the different Mary's have different facial features? According to you, they must all look the same.
2) Why does Mary dresses and has hairstyles that look like dresses and hairstyles that contemporary women (of the time of the painter) are wearing?
3) According to thee Bible, Mary wasn't rich, but the wife of a carpenter. Why are the pictures depicting her in high status clothing?

Unless you are answering these 3 questions, I don't really see any point in discussing anything further, as you seemed to be set in believing this nonsense of Mary actually looking like a white Western European rich woman, which she clearly wasn't.

There is nothing in her clothing which is a simple robe which shows her as being wealthy.
I never said she was european, merely possibly the fact these artists never saw mary but only had a verbal description of her so designed her facial features in their own personal style but they are all somewhat similar not an exact replica but similar.

So basically this "nonsense" was something I never said.

---

As for Atomic

It does not matter what robe she's wearing, im sure she had more than one piece of clothing so forget the clothes, its the style of clothing that matters, it is a robe which people would of wore at that time.


As a matter of fact the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit in the bible
The dove became a symbol of The Holy Spirit -
"And when Jesus was baptized , He went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on Him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17 RSV)



I have no photographic evidence of it but I know people who were there and actually seen it in person, you dont have to believe me just research it and see how many people saw that.

If someone had pre-specified all of those things together as being signs of an apparition, you might almost be right. But Mary seems to like to show up in all sorts of places, so the church isn't all that relevant. Robes indiscernible from the supposed robes we see here were common for thousands of years. Doves are basically meaningless(No they're not) too. So what you have is several disconnected events which you're now drawing lines between with your mind.

It appears to be a light shaped like a person wearing a robe. Anything beyond that is speculation.

And exactly how can a light be shaped to look like a person wearing a robe?
Hologram projectors still do not exist, im sure they did not exist back in 1968.
This light isn't just dismissable random light.

kiffer

um... It's not covered in atheist boot camp but is there a biblical description of Mary? Other than the obvious fact she was a woman...? I don't mean who her family was and I don't expect stuff like how tall she was in cubits or what not... But something that would indicate her (general) physical appearance.

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There is nothing in her clothing which is a simple robe which shows her as being wealthy.
I never said she was european, merely possibly the fact these artists never saw mary but only had a verbal description of her so designed her facial features in their own personal style but they are all somewhat similar not an exact replica but similar.

So basically this "nonsense" was something I never said.

Now you're retracting your statements. You said

partyatmygaff wrote: »

a figure which looks exactly like the Mary we see in artwork(Which is based on the real mary, those artists did not just invent her likeness)

The figure looked like the Mary of the artwork. As you believe she was the real Mary, the artwork must look exactly like the real Mary.

Now have a look at these 3 Renaissance pictures I found in a quick google search

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Do they look like a carpenter's wife, who lived 2000 years ago in Israel, or do they look like a wealth Renaissance woman?

No have a look at this picture
Picture 4
That;s a picture from around the same time. While you probably would argue that the 3 last pictures show the same woman (an argument I can't follow). No one in his right mind can argue that the 4th picture depicts the same physical woman as the other 3 (which also depicted 3 different women).
That's only for Renaissance pictures.
I'm not going to find any medieval pictures of Mary for you, you have to do that on your own. But then you will see that these pictures are very different from the ones shown above.

And about you not saying Mary looks Western European. Pleas show me a picture where she doesn't (I know she's black in the 4th, which is similar untrue), but the wast majority of pictures shows her as a white Western European Women. If you say differently, proof it.

partyatmygaff

mdebets wrote: »

Now you're retracting your statements. You said


The figure looked like the Mary of the artwork. As you believe she was the real Mary, the artwork must look exactly like the real Mary.

Now have a look at these 3 Renaissance pictures I found in a quick google search

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Do they look like a carpenter's wife, who lived 2000 years ago in Israel, or do they look like a wealth Renaissance woman?

No have a look at this picture
Picture 4
That;s a picture from around the same time. While you probably would argue that the 3 last pictures show the same woman (an argument I can't follow). No one in his right mind can argue that the 4th picture depicts the same physical woman as the other 3 (which also depicted 3 different women).
That's only for Renaissance pictures.
I'm not going to find any medieval pictures of Mary for you, you have to do that on your own. But then you will see that these pictures are very different from the ones shown above.

And about you not saying Mary looks Western European. Pleas show me a picture where she doesn't (I know she's black in the 4th, which is similar untrue), but the wast majority of pictures shows her as a white Western European Women. If you say differently, proof it.

Ok, but there is still similar features between all of them.


This is NOT the point though, her artwork is not at issue here. Even if she looks similar to possibly one of the paintings out there then answer me WHY does the apparition look like that? Why was it not just a big white blob as the photo suggests.

Zombrex

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ok, but there is still similar features between all of them.

That is the point. Portraits of Mary share the clothing of women of the time that they were painted. Mary is painted to look like a well to do woman of the period.

There is no reason at all to suppose that any of these pictures have any relationship to what the real Mary looked like.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This is NOT the point though, her artwork is not at issue here.

It is though because the paintings of Mary are what most people would have in their mind as to what she looked like. This apparition isn't an apparition of Mary, it is an apparition of pictures of Mary. That should tell us something ...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Even if she looks similar to possibly one of the paintings out there then answer me WHY does the apparition look like that?

Because humans are very good at pattern matching.

All of us have been exposed to those painting of Mary for a long period of time. Certain features are, as you say, common among. Our brain pattern matches these and we think we are seeing an image of Mary. We aren't. We are seeing a white blob. A while blob that at certain angles matches a certain pattern that our brains fill in the gaps with.

O'Coonassa

Wicknight wrote: »

Because humans are very good at pattern matching.

All of us have been exposed to those painting of Mary for a long period of time. Certain features are, as you say, common among. Our brain pattern matches these and we think we are seeing an image of Mary. We aren't. We are seeing a white blob. A while blob that at certain angles matches a certain pattern that our brains fill in the gaps with.

Good answer. However I'm still left wondering why the Jewish and Muslim witnesses in a Muslim country would have been receptive to the pattern. We're all exposed to Mary worship from an early age as it is endemic in Catholicism and so there is clearly room for the pattern to be imprinted. I'm slightly dubious that an Egyptian Muslim or Jew has been exposed to the same.

mdebets

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Good answer. However I'm still left wondering why the Jewish and Muslim witnesses in a Muslim country would have been receptive to the pattern. We're all exposed to Mary worship from an early age as it is endemic in Catholicism and so there is clearly room for the pattern to be imprinted. I'm slightly dubious that an Egyptian Muslim or Jew has been exposed to the same.

I'm not sure about that either, but there are many possibilities.
Islam forbidds to paint pictures of people, so no Islamic pictures of Mary exist. Therefore, all pictures of Mary, a Muslim would have seen, would have been Christian ones.
I don't know how it is in Egypt, but at the house of Mary in Ephesus (Turkey), the place were the Muslims go to venerate her, is very near the Christian church. So it might well be that ordinary Muslims would have seen them.
The president and the police seeing them, would also suggest that the higher levels of the Egyptian society were there. Many of them had been educated in Europe and America, so it might well be possible that they had seen these pictures before.
The same might be true for the Jews.

Zombrex

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Good answer. However I'm still left wondering why the Jewish and Muslim witnesses in a Muslim country would have been receptive to the pattern. We're all exposed to Mary worship from an early age as it is endemic in Catholicism and so there is clearly room for the pattern to be imprinted. I'm slightly dubious that an Egyptian Muslim or Jew has been exposed to the same.

It doesn't really have anything to do with who you worship, it is to do with visual pattern matching. It is subconscious. Modern Jews and Muslims would have seen all the old paintings of Mary as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for Atomic

It does not matter what robe she's wearing, im sure she had more than one piece of clothing so forget the clothes, its the style of clothing that matters, it is a robe which people would of wore at that time.

So we've already discounted the relevance of her face and now her robes are not relevant either. Ok. So once again, how exactly are we identifying the person-shaped light as Mary?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As a matter of fact the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit in the bible
The dove became a symbol of The Holy Spirit -
"And when Jesus was baptized , He went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on Him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17 RSV)

So, if we assume for a moment that doves are a sign of the holy spirit and that this light is an apparition of a person doesn't that mean it could be an apparition of any person into whom the holy spirit has descended? Which would be any true Christian basically? Of which there have been hundreds of millions at least.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have no photographic evidence of it but I know people who were there and actually seen it in person, you dont have to believe me just research it and see how many people saw that.

1. I don't have to research anything. You're the guy with the extraordinary claim. If you want to convince me, the burden of evidence is on you.

2. A reference that says 3 million people saw a thing isn't much good unless we can see how that was documented. What did these 3 million people variously see? Who were they and what did they think about it? Why aren't there say, 1 million or so personal accounts of this on record? If there are, where can I access them? Of these 3 million people, how many were sceptics or scientists? What are their accounts of this event?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And exactly how can a light be shaped to look like a person wearing a robe?

No idea, I'm just telling you what we know from the photo, which is not very much. Beyond that you can only speculate.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hologram projectors still do not exist, im sure they did not exist back in 1968.
This light isn't just dismissable random light.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm trying to figure out how you make the leap from "light shaped like a person" to "it's Mary the mother of Jesus Christ".

Mickeroo

Hmmmm theres an "apparition" of a second church steeple too. They still had the technology to engineer a fake photo photo back then.

partyatmygaff

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hmmmm theres an "apparition" of a second church steeple too. They still had the technology to engineer a fake photo photo back then.

What the hell are you talking about? Im guessing you've never seen that church in real life? The majority of the Churches in egypt have more than one steeple.

#


Thats an image of the church (NO there is no apparition in this photo)

Stop spouting "facts" without actually knowing anything thats being discussed.

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So we've already discounted the relevance of her face and now her robes are not relevant either. Ok. So once again, how exactly are we identifying the person-shaped light as Mary?
Well the fact she had a child in her hands(Baby Jesus?), had doves flying around(Holy Spirit?), was directly over the St.Mary Church Steeple(No explanation neccessary), The popes of 2 seperate churches both confirmed it was genuine(Pope Cyril of the Orthodox and the Catholic Pope of the time), The lay people including my mother who seen this person wearing Robes which would of been worn 2000 years ago holding a child with doves flying around them.
Now why would there be any old random figure from 2000 years ago with a child in her hands surrounded by doves on top of a church steeple, that makes little sense.


So, if we assume for a moment that doves are a sign of the holy spirit and that this light is an apparition of a person doesn't that mean it could be an apparition of any person into whom the holy spirit has descended? Which would be any true Christian basically? Of which there have been hundreds of millions at least.
You don't need to assume, the bible itself says that.
It COULD be any christian from 2000 years ago who has a child in their hands. But WHY would they be appearing over a church dedicated to Mary with a child in their hands.


1. I don't have to research anything. You're the guy with the extraordinary claim. If you want to convince me, the burden of evidence is on you.
Em Photographic evidence is right in front of you, what more can I show you besides the fact my mother was there and witnessed it personally along with thousands of others on that day.

2. A reference that says 3 million people saw a thing isn't much good unless we can see how that was documented. What did these 3 million people variously see? Who were they and what did they think about it? Why aren't there say, 1 million or so personal accounts of this on record? If there are, where can I access them? Of these 3 million people, how many were sceptics or scientists? What are their accounts of this event?
Ok lets take this in mind for a moment, lets assume this 3 million people is a lie(Which it isnt) and only 100,000 people of varying faiths seen it. Does that mean it is false?
Could it seriously of been a MASS hallucination where thousands (In reality millions) could of all seen the exact same hallucination at different times?

Your asking me why there were no scientists at scene to investigate, there were as a matter of fact, they were employed by the government to find any way to stop or see how those christians were fooling the masses. When they did not find a way, the government attempted to quieten it down, they did not want masses of muslims to convert to christianity.

A jew, muslim or anyone is automatically a sceptic btw as if they come there in belief there really is an apparition of Mary on a "CHRISTIAN" church steeple while they themselves believe their way of life or religion is correct then they themselves cannot call themselves Athiest, Jewish or Muslim.





No idea, I'm just telling you what we know from the photo, which is not very much. Beyond that you can only speculate.
Im telling you what my mother witnessed amongst the thousands, I don't need to speculate, I doubt my mother would need to lie to prove this to me.
The photo is poor, I agree but it is not the sole piece of evidence.



I'm not dismissing it, I'm trying to figure out how you make the leap from "light shaped like a person" to "it's Mary the mother of Jesus Christ".

Ok you may be right, It COULD be a light shaped like any person.

But why is it a light that resembles what people of today's image of Mary happens to be. Why does that "light that looks like a person" happen to have a child in her hands and has doves flying around.
And most importantly, if this is any random person, Why is it on top of a church steeple dedicated to Mary?

partyatmygaff

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Good answer. However I'm still left wondering why the Jewish and Muslim witnesses in a Muslim country would have been receptive to the pattern. We're all exposed to Mary worship from an early age as it is endemic in Catholicism and so there is clearly room for the pattern to be imprinted. I'm slightly dubious that an Egyptian Muslim or Jew has been exposed to the same.

Jews I am not too sure if they are subject to such imagery, however I am certain most Muslim children from childhood are indoctrinated with the all "christians are evil" and that they should avoid anywhere christian, so no I doubt they would of seen an Image of mary more than once if at all in their lives.

Over there in egypt, shops have qur'anic verses on some shop walls, its very rare you see something christian.

AtomicHorror

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Em Photographic evidence is right in front of you, what more can I show you besides the fact my mother was there and witnessed it personally along with thousands of others on that day.

Em, the photographic evidence shows a light shaped like a person in a robe with some doves. That's all we can say based on that alone. The anecdotal evidence from your mother is just that- an anecdote from a single person not even directly presented to us but presented via you many years after the event. That's very weak evidence which could have been corrupted by old memories, delusion, wishful think or even deception and is evidence which we cannot verify. So it's not useful or informative. Point me to multiple corroborating sworn witness statements taken on the day of one of these apparitions and that might amount to something.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ok you may be right, It COULD be a light shaped like any person.

But why is it a light that resembles what people of today's image of Mary happens to be.

It doesn't resemble her. It vaguely resembles a person and devout Christians who see it will tend to assume that person is Mary.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why does that "light that looks like a person" happen to have a child in her hands and has doves flying around.

Can't see the child. Can't establish that it is a child. Doves, no idea. Depends what the light is, which we can't establish from this evidence.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And most importantly, if this is any random person, Why is it on top of a church steeple dedicated to Mary?

Why not? Since we know nothing about what this apparition is, we can't say if its location is significant or why this would be so.

If we're really going to talk about this as being evidence for something, there's not an awful lot we can say before we're just making assumptions. And if you're going to claim that it is some specific thing, you need to be able to suggest how and why this is so and provide further evidence which supports that. Otherwise there's really nothing to be disproven.

partyatmygaff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Em, the photographic evidence shows a light shaped like a person in a robe with some doves. That's all we can say based on that alone. The anecdotal evidence from your mother is just that- an anecdote from a single person not even directly presented to us but presented via you many years after the event. That's very weak evidence which could have been corrupted by old memories, delusion, wishful think or even deception and is evidence which we cannot verify. So it's not useful or informative. Point me to multiple corroborating sworn witness statements taken on the day of one of these apparitions and that might amount to something.



It doesn't resemble her. It vaguely resembles a person and devout Christians who see it will tend to assume that person is Mary.



Can't see the child. Can't establish that it is a child. Doves, no idea. Depends what the light is, which we can't establish from this evidence.



Why not? Since we know nothing about what this apparition is, we can't say if its location is significant or why this would be so.

If we're really going to talk about this as being evidence for something, there's not an awful lot we can say before we're just making assumptions. And if you're going to claim that it is some specific thing, you need to be able to suggest how and why this is so and provide further evidence which supports that. Otherwise there's really nothing to be disproven.

This is really getting nowhere, Your looking at it as just being a light but you won't answer why is there a light.

Zombrex

partyatmygaff wrote: »

however I am certain most Muslim children from childhood are indoctrinated with the all "christians are evil" and that they should avoid anywhere christian

You are certain of that?

Do you know many Muslims?

Zombrex

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This is really getting nowhere, Your looking at it as just being a light but you won't answer why is there a light.

I imagine he doesn't know. Neither do you.

What is wrong with "we have no idea what that is" as an answer.

mdebets

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Jews I am not too sure if they are subject to such imagery, however I am certain most Muslim children from childhood are indoctrinated with the all "christians are evil" and that they should avoid anywhere christian, so no I doubt they would of seen an Image of mary more than once if at all in their lives.

Over there in egypt, shops have qur'anic verses on some shop walls, its very rare you see something christian.

How many Muslims do you actually know?

You know that Christians, together with Jews, are mentioned as the people of the book in the Koran, which have to be treated special by Muslims?